Still ringing in my head is the conversation I had with 8 highly privileged, highly educated, accomplished women last year. When I said I thought Julian Assange was a hero for what he’d done with Wikileaks, they looked at me like I had two heads.

Rape or sex crime charges are used against leftists because they know it will split the left. There are women (and some men) who will assume that anyone charged with rape must be guilty, and that women never lie about rape.

And we’ll never know whether Assange is guilty or innocent of rape charges until a proper trial is held. But it will never happen.

The British government acting like asshats over Pinochet is not a good reason to let rape accusations slide just because someone is a hero in some other forum. Otherwise Polanskis, Bryants, Strauss-Kahns, and yes, maybe even Assanges get to sexually assault people at will. Which seems to be the case already, but aren’t we supposed to be trying for a better world?

Games are being played here and the fix is in.
The hysterical anger of the British foreign office is the first clue.
Next, if Sweden were actually interested just in investigating the rape allegations, and if they absolutely had to have him come to Sweden, they could easily have confirmed to Assange’s lawyers that he would not be sent to the US. That Britain and Sweden are both acting like dicks supports the idea that this was trumped up to get him to the US.
Why the US would actually want him is puzzling, given how controversial such a trial would be, but that’s another story, I guess. Maybe they think they can’t convict Bradley Manning without him, or vice versa.

Rape or sex crime charges are used against leftists because they know it will split the left. There are women (and some men) who will assume that anyone charged with rape must be guilty, and that women never lie about rape.

But that’s the thing; my conversation with these women took place before those accusations came out. They were against Assange and against Wikileaks because they bought the Obama and mainstream media bullshit about how it had “hurt our country.”

The hypocrisy of the aristocracy is in full view yet most people I talk to dont care. 30 years of neoliberalism has turned the western world into a bunch of selfish individualistic gits. I wish I could fast forward 20 years so I dont have to watch this slow motion train wreck play out…..

In 1984 a British police officer was shot dead by Libyans within their London embassy. The resulting “seige” of their embassy ended with Britain allowing the diplomats to be flown home to Libya. But Assange must be arrested….

yep the trap for Assange is working well. the rape charges are the best way to automatically “convict” Assange. just shows how well these things work. and quite telling that Sweden is in on the scam.

to convict Assange without any questions, doubts or even a trail, the rape charge is played. one step closer to an American prison cell. this divide and conquer strategy has been working really well in America for the last 3o-40 years.

Assange is now automatically guilty. no trial necessary. split women from men, as has been done time and time again. Brilliant strategy that has no resolution. poison the waters and keeps it that way. Not that there ever will be a rape trial, i’d bet. Assange is dead meat, for sure. Sweden sounds very corrupt too.

to watch Britain and Sweden do the biddding of the American Government. wow. i thought the story of ” The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” was great fiction, but it sure sounds like fact now.

>>>Why the US would actually want him is puzzling, given how controversial such a trial would be, but that’s another story<<<

A trial is not what's planned for him. They want to find out how he came into the material. If it were mere retribution they wanted, they'd simply kill him, but they want him alive at least for now. Rest assured that if they get him, you'll hear about Assange no more. He'll disappear into the security apparatus.

@Mary – basically. If you read through the accusations, they are quite weird. He stayed at “Miss A”‘s flat and had consensual sex with her. He didn’t want to use a condom, but ended up doing so. She says that he meant to have it break. Which he finds odd, since she never, in the week that he was staying at her flat, ever mentioned that the condom broke. She didn’t throw him out or tell him she had an issue with him the entire time he stayed with her. He also had consenual sex with “Miss W” around the same time. All the sex sounds like it was consenual, even when you read the accusations from the point of view of the women. He sounds like a very horny guy who occasionally likes to tear off the clothes of good looking ladies(that’s also in the accusations).

Rational minds want to know; what’s the problem? Condums? Is this extradition worthy?
I think it’s pretty clear; this is a U.S. thing orchestrated for the world.
Do we really care? No, not really, but it all changes when a super power says it’s so.
Where’s the justice?

I was reading an old Dwight McDonald essay last week. He suggested that the cultural difference between Germans and Anglos is that where Germans will be more literal, Anglos have a culture of hypocrisy. His point was that both cultures have murderous values, but Anglos assume one should lie and dissemble about them.

I’m disappointed and frustrated that so many otherwise smart, liberal people can be so neatly manipulated by blunt instruments like the “honey trap”- a tried and true tactic used by many state intelligence agencies throughout modern history.

To Lisa S. above I’d say there is little hope of retrieving “liberals” who reject WikiLeaks outright, influenced by the notion that it is attacking “their” President (even as they choose to overlook his repressive moves on whistleblowers). I also believe that many other liberals may well be”split” on Assange because they don’t want to risk defending a potential rapist, even as they will likely concede that some form of frame job is being played out.

After UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter was caught on child porn charges, I don’t recall anyone arguing that his crime ruined his credibility regarding The existence of Iraqi WMD’s.

I remember being alerted to the lies in advertising by a great teacher when I was still in grade school. It wasn’t possible to teach us that much about the topic when me and the other schoolchildren were not even teenagers yet, but at least it put the idea out there and encouraged us to notice it. I wish we seriously educated the young about the methods of propaganda. I wish we had workshops for adults to bring our resistance to manipulated information up to speed.

Correction: Ritter was charged and convicted of soliciting sex with a minor over the Internet (obviously more serious than just clicking through illegal images on a computer), but my implication remains: the credibility of Assange’s work, like Ritter’s, has to be judged by evidence and argument.
The significance of WikiLeaks’ evidence shouldn’t be linked with anything Assange may (or may not) be guilty of.

No, Sweden doesn’t arrest people for not wearing a condom. That’s a lie Assange’s lawyer made up. He’s wanted for sexual assault. His lawyer has said that stipulating everything the women say is true (he held her down, he had sex with her while she was unconscious, etc.) that still isn’t sexual assault.

I’m really sick of the “They want to arrest him for not wearing a condom” thing. Debate the case, debate whether it would have been pursued internationally if it wasn’t Assange, denate extradition law and national sovereignty, debate whether the Swedes intend to extradite, debate whether Assange as chief fundraiser is even all that important to Wikileaks if you want to, but please stop with that condom story.

Yes, LC, let’s not talk about condoms, because of course we should focus on what’s IMPORTANT, which in your narrow terms extends only as far as the sexual assault allegations.
Meanwhile, every article or posting about the Assange rape allegations is one less story about Bradley Manning, and the awful nature of the crimes he revealed.

B Lager: LC is asking everyone to stop spreading falsehoods and stop minimizing the accusations against Assange. The accusations I’ve read state that he lied about wearing a condom and also had sex with an unconscious woman. Whether or not he’s guilty of this is for the Swedish courts to decide.

It’s possible for him to simultaneously be the “hero” of Wikileaks and a rapist. The former is well known and public, while the latter has yet to be legally determined but has been raised as a possibility. The inability of most people to hold these two thoughts in their head at the same time is a big problem. Some see “rape” and want nothing to do with him or his work–he must have done it and so he’s evil and cannot be redeemed. Others see “Wikileaks” and decide that the charges against him are likely fabricated or that his work is too important for this to take him down.

These two events in his life cannot be added or subtracted from each other to arrive at a single final judgement. He did something really good with Wikileaks and potentially did something really bad with those two women. He should be held accountable for the bad and lauded for the good–meaning, he should go to Sweden for questioning, possibly trial, and jail time if found guilty, but should not be extradited to the US for his Wikileaks activity.

My personal opinion is that he’s done great things with Wikileaks but is probably an absolute shitbag of a person who I wouldn’t want to be around.

I don’t think “Pinochet had women raped by dogs” makes a good headline, not unless that is what the story is about, and you are presenting the evidence to back up the headline. Here the mention of dogs is over-egging the pudding.

Bolo, please read all three of my posts. I’m saying almost exactly what you are! WikiLeaks’ work doesn’t give Assange a pass if he’s guilty of rape, but conversely, guilt of rape (if it’s ever proven) doesn’t erase WikiLeaks crucial role as a pipeline for whistleblowers to reach the world.
In any case, the real ball to keep our collective eyes on is the ongoing (mis)conduct of the American-led Global War On Whatever.

Bolo has the right of it. With the added particular annoyance that the “Sweden has laws that criminalize not using a condom” is just flat out a lie and pisses me off.

But we three are in basic agreement. Actually, your point about Manning is a big one. I would really prefer to see more coverage of Manning than Assange. (I share Bolo’s opinion of him.) Also, the financial blockade on Wikileaks has been much more damaging to their continuing to function, and doesn’t get mentioned enough.

Like most people, I believe the UK’s threats to storm the embassy and sudden embrace of the importance of extradition to be driven by their dislike of Assange and Wikileaks. Same for a sexual assault charge to get an Interpol warrant. I am completely capable of believing that this would never have been pursued the way it was if it wasn’t a way to hit at the perception of Wikileaks, while also believing Assange did what he is accused of.

jcapan PERMALINK
August 16, 2012
“Brilliant fucking headline”
Yes, it is. And Lisa, have you ever considered avoiding the company you keep? You seem to consort with some vile wankers.

Ha ha! Actually, I haven’t hung out with them since then. That was the last straw.

I still have them on my mailing list, and I still send out sarcastic, politically charged mass mailings, but at this point I do it just to annoy people. I know I’m not convincing anyone. Most of them are content to live in denial. As long as Obama is in office, everything that was once bad is now good. You can bet if WikiLeaks had broken while Bush was in office, they’d all be on the other side.